I do use the specific
New Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV (1st edition) [NOAB-1] you mention. It was my textbook in a secular university when I formally studied the Bible in college, and I learned to enjoy it then. (At the time, it “ruled the roost” as the standard secular and ecumenical study Bible.)
The annotations are something of an “official” annotation to the (ecumenical version) of the RSV because of the the heavy involvement of RSV translators in preparing the annotations. The NOAB-1 proved to be quite influential – in fact, the original [not new]
Oxford Annotated Bible reportedly even received the imprimatur from Richard Cardinal Cushing.
The annotations to the NOAB-1 contain useful information and do not appear especially denominational to me (however, the annotators are overwhelmingly mainline Protestants). At the time the NOAB-1 was published, it was considered to be a “liberal” study Bible – however, as contemporary secular Bible studies has become increasingly liberal, the NOAB-1 is now considered to be moderately conservative.
It is important to also keep in mind the limitations of the NOAB-1 – it is **not **a Catholic commentary; this edition of the RSV does **not **have the imprimatur (and includes works in the Eastern Orthodox canon that are **not **in the Roman Catholic canon); and the scholarship is rather dated (for example, it takes little note of the the Dead Sea Scrolls). By today’s contemporary standards, the annotation is relatively light – many more recent academic study Bibles or devotional study Bibles contain much more lengthy annotation.
The NOAB-1 takes a more traditional viewpoint than the Oxford
Catholic Study Bible (2nd edition), for example, but lacks the devotional or Roman approach of some of the other study Bibles (such as the *Navarre *or
Ignatius) recommended on this forum.
Nonetheless, the NOAB-1 is considered to be so important that it stays in print after 30 years (in both hardcover and leather editions) even though a number of later editions appeared.
There are major differences between the NOAB-1 and the
New Oxford Study Bible-NRSV (3rd augmented edition) [NOAB-3].
- The NOAB-1 is based on the RSV, the NOAB-3 is based on the NRSV.
- The NOAB-1 editors and commentators are dominated by Mainline Protestants, while the NOAB-3 includes prominent Catholic and Jewish editors and commentators.
- The NOAB-1 editors and commentators have a close connection with the actual RSV translators, while the NOAB-3 editors and commentators are not as closely connected with the NRSV (or RSV) translation.
- The NOAB-1 today is considered to be a moderately conservative study Bible, while most people consider the NOAB-3 to be a moderately liberal study Bible (I do not completely agree with this sentiment, but a discussion of that point will take me far away from your question.)
- The NOAB-1 has relatively concise essays and annotation; the NOAB-3 contains much wordier annotation and essays. (Which of the two styles your prefer is a matter of taste; but I would start with the lighter annotations.)
- The NOAB-3 is physically larger than the NOAB-1.
Two other NRSV-study Bibles often compared with the NOAB-3 are New Interpreter’s Study Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible (2nd edition). Both of these contain even longer annotation than the NOAB-3 I find the New Interpreter’s to be easy to read but liberal in outlook. I find the HarperCollins to be scholarly (and, in places, difficult) but it is sloppily edited (rather a large number of repetitions, grammatical errors, etc.).
Because the all of the Bibles discussed in my post (except for the Oxford
Catholic Study Bible) are ecumenical and lack the imprimatur, I recommend using them only in conjunction with an approved Catholic reference. However, of all of the study Bibles I discussed in this post, the NOAB-1 is the most conservative – both “politically” (in terms of being in harmony with tradition) and “stylistically” (being concise and cautious in speculation). For example, most of my Orthodox scholar friends use the NOAB-1.
I do think that the book is one of the physically nicest presentations of the RSV in print, in terms of layout, font size, typography, etc.
The bottom line is that I like the NOAB-1 – but I also recommend using it in conjunction with more traditional commentary. I also suggest that you consult with your priest or other spiritual advisor before using the NOAB-1. Because the NOAB-1 dominated secular and ecumenical Bible study in the 1970s, 1980s, and the first part of the 1990s (and continues to be held in high esteem in many circles) most clergy will be quite familiar with this work.
People tend to have strong opinions on this sort of topic, and I am sure you will receive a wide diversity of useful opinions. Happy reading!
) use this one…
